Are you OEC or YEC?

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Yes, I agree. As well, the bible never says how God did it, meaning evolution might be valid, though I really just don't know.

Actually it does.

(Genesis 1:3) And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

(Genesis 1:6) And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

(Genesis 1:9) And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

(Genesis 1:11) And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Etc, etc... You get the idea.
God spoke things into existence.

 

[ChrisS]

Actually it does.

(Genesis 1:3) And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

(Genesis 1:6) And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

(Genesis 1:9) And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

(Genesis 1:11) And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Etc, etc... You get the idea.
God spoke things into existence.

But what process brought them here? God spoke, commanding His new creation, natural selection. to quickly bring forth humanity, and the plants, and the waters. Also a way that can be interpretted. Perhaps evolution could happen within a day? Under Gods command.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

I gave you the process. God spoke and it was so. It seems like your wanting a natural process though which you won't find since that's not how God worked when creating.

Another problem is if you think God used macroevolution to create, whether in a day or a billion years, would mean that God killed off a lot of life to get humans and other forms of life. That's far from very good as God had said. That and the order of things being created would really throw a wrench into the macroevolution ideal.

But what process brought them here? God spoke, commanding His new creation, natural selection. to quickly bring forth humanity, and the plants, and the waters. Also a way that can be interpretted. Perhaps evolution could happen within a day? Under Gods command.

 

[ChrisS]

I gave you the process. God spoke and it was so. It seems like your wanting a nature process though which you won't find since that's not how God worked when creating.

Another problem is if you think God used macroevolution to create, whether in a day or a billion years, would mean that God killed off a lot of life to get humans and other forms of life. That's far from very good as God had said. That and the order of things being created would really throw a wrench into the macroevolution ideal.

Perhaps no killing was needed. You can't evolve in a day just by killing . I dunno. But the bible never says how He did it, just what He said.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Ok, your welcomed to believe what you want.

Perhaps no killing was needed. You can't evolve in a day just by killing . I dunno. But the bible never says how He did it, just what He said.

 

[depthdeception]

I gave you the process. God spoke and it was so. It seems like your wanting a natural process though which you won't find since that's not how God worked when creating.

Another problem is if you think God used macroevolution to create, whether in a day or a billion years, would mean that God killed off a lot of life to get humans and other forms of life. That's far from very good as God had said. That and the order of things being created would really throw a wrench into the macroevolution ideal.

Why would things dying (not being "killed off") throw a "wrench" into the macroevolution ideal? You are projecting a moral value onto a natural process (death).

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

I said the order of things being created throws a wrench into the evolutionary idea. The reason being is that it conflicts with the order of the evolutionary idea. Be careful to not take a little bit of evolutionary thought and a little bit of biblical thought and mix them together so that it's just one big mess. To many people I run into do that. They try to take the best of both worlds and don't realize that they now conflict with evolutionary thinking and creationist thinking. I need to run to work but I'll check this thread tonight.

Why would things dying (not being "killed off") throw a "wrench" into the macroevolution ideal? You are projecting a moral value onto a natural process (death).

 

[depthdeception]

I said the order of things being created throws a wrench into the evolutionary idea.

Actually, you said "that and the order of things being created"--"that" referring to the "killing" of millions upon millions of organisms. But this is not the point. I would still like for you to answer the question.

The reason being is that it conflicts with the order of the evolutionary idea. Be careful to not take a little bit of evolutionary thought and a little bit of biblical thought and mix them together so that it's just one big mess. To many people I run into do that. They try to take the best of both worlds and don't realize that they now conflict with evolutionary thinking and creationist thinking.

You're right. This is why I only use evolutionary theory. "Creationism"--as it is popularly known todya--is without foundation, even in the Scriptures.

I need to run to work but I'll check this thread tonight.

I'll await your response to my previous question.

 

[keyarch]

But what process brought them here? God spoke, commanding His new creation, natural selection. to quickly bring forth humanity, and the plants, and the waters. Also a way that can be interpretted. Perhaps evolution could happen within a day? Under Gods command.

God did create the mechanisms for natural selection. But, this "selection" is of pre-existing traits. This selection does not create new "kinds".

The creatures brought forth during the creation 'week' were specific "kinds" that could already reproduce and only within their kind. From that point on, all we have is variation within species due to genetic traits. I don't see any environmental causes that would have the effect of changing a living organisms DNA which would then pass down any new viable information for a new working feature of benefit, not to mention what would have to occur to get the diversity of life we see today in all its perfection and beauty and complexity.

It is much easier to create a mechanical machine than a biological one, and we can't even duplicate the functions of many organisms and creatures with all our intelligence and tools, then add to that the ability to self replicate and heal/repair and the programmed information to carry out life from it's conception thru all the building and maturing stages into adulthood. What natural process could cause all of that to be organized in such a planned, purposeful and brilliant manner?

All I can say is that God still has His veil over many eyes, so that they cannot see what is right before them. And they never will until God removes that veil. We should not follow those who still have their eyes and minds covered no matter how intelligent they seem to be.

 

[EIChief]

You're right. This is why I only use evolutionary theory. "Creationism"--as it is popularly known todya--is without foundation, even in the Scriptures.

Actually "Intelligent Design" is a more modern term but Creationism will suffice, and it has very solid foundation both inside and outside of the scriptures.

As I stated earlier, God spoke the necessities into existence and then started the process of micro evolution. You can see the difference in the wording and get an understanding of the things that were spoken into existence, and the other processes that God ordered to start

(Genesis 1:9) And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

(Genesis 1:11) And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Note that the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind is just like the animals breeding after their kind. The evolution within the species of plants and animals was a process ordered by God, after he spoke the necessities for life into existence. This is a very sound base set up for Intelligent Design within the Bible which explains things quite clearly.

Outside of the bible is of course Science. As recently as today hundreds of scientists from all disciplines have signed on in dispute of random mutation and natural selection as something that by itself can explain the complexity of life. The more science that is discovered, the more the walls of Darwinism are broken down. Without going into specifics in this post, a simple cell in your body is much too complicated to be created by random chemical reactions.

The question I would have is if Intelligent design of the evolutionary process is "without foundation", then what exactly is the foundation that you rest evolution on?

 

[depthdeception]

Note that the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind is just like the animals breeding after their kind. The evolution within the species of plants and animals was a process ordered by God, after he spoke the necessities for life into existence. This is a very sound base set up for Intelligent Design within the Bible which explains things quite clearly.

Except for the fact that the Scriptures speak of the sun being created after plant life--thus, the "necessities" of life were not in place, for the plants could not have conducted photosythesis without the rays of the sun...

The question I would have is if Intelligent design of the evolutionary process is "without foundation", then what exactly is the foundation that you rest evolution on?

Observation and experience of the universe in which we live.

 

[EIChief]

Except for the fact that the Scriptures speak of the sun being created after plant life--thus, the "necessities" of life were not in place, for the plants could not have conducted photosythesis without the rays of the sun...

So God created the Heavens and the Earth

But the earth was dark and without form

So God said let there be light. What was this light? Is it not logical to think that the light was sufficient enough to support life, and darkness was seperated from this light?

Then the sun was created to seperate the light from darkness in the day periods that we see today. Otherwise light would have been constantly upon us.

There is no reason to believe that the Light created before the Sun was in place could not carry out the process of photosynthesis

 

[depthdeception]

So God said let there be light. What was this light? Is it not logical to think that the light was sufficient enough to support life, and darkness was seperated from this light?

No, it is not logical. The distance between the earth and the sun is the reason why life is possible on earth, and is the reason earth is not a boiling mass of molten elements or a stone-cold, dead rock hurtling through space. If "light" is all that is necessary to sustain life, we should expect there to be a very good potential that all the other planets in our solar system have (or could support plant and animal life) life. However, because of their distance from the sun, life as we know it is impossible naturally.

Then the sun was created to seperate the light from darkness in the day periods that we see today. Otherwise light would have been constantly upon us.

The reason the light of the sun is not always upon us is because the earth rotates. Without the sun, there is no light for earthlings.

There is no reason to believe that the Light created before the Sun was in place could not carry out the process of photosynthesis

Are you kidding? There is no reason to believe that it could! But there is every reason to believe that it couldn't...some of which I have listed above.

 

[EIChief]

No, it is not logical. The distance between the earth and the sun is the reason why life is possible on earth, and is the reason earth is not a boiling mass of molten elements or a stone-cold, dead rock hurtling through space. If "light" is all that is necessary to sustain life, we should expect there to be a very good potential that all the other planets in our solar system have (or could support plant and animal life) life. However, because of their distance from the sun, life as we know it is impossible naturally.

You are mixing statements here to support your concept of what the "Light" was in Genesis 1:3. We should not expect that the light supported life on other planets because life was only created on Earth according to the Genesis account. "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth". Then the Earth brings forth living things, and all other planets are classified as the "Heavens".

Now you talk about the Sun and its approximation to the Earth that God created in Genesis 1:14. Lights were created in the sky to give seperate light from day and give seasons. In verse 16 the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule he night is talked about as well. This is obviously different then the light spoken into existence in verse 3.

Now as it relates to what we are talking about, the Earth brought forth plants before the sun was created, so evolutionary theory would say that the "Light" must have been sufficient to support the life on the earth, but it was not sunlight since that was not created yet.

The reason the light of the sun is not always upon us is because the earth rotates. Without the sun, there is no light for earthlings.

Your mixing again. The light in Genesis 1:3 was not sunlight

Are you kidding? There is no reason to believe that it could! But there is every reason to believe that it couldn't...some of which I have listed above

Which is false in its premise

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Actually, you said "that and the order of things being created"--"that" referring to the "killing" of millions upon millions of organisms. But this is not the point. I would still like for you to answer the question.

I'm not sure what your talking about. Maybe you misunderstood me?

You're right. This is why I only use evolutionary theory. "Creationism"--as it is popularly known todya--is without foundation, even in the Scriptures.

If your not a creationist you are not allowed to debate in here and I really shouldn't reply to your questions because that would contribute to the rules of the forum being broken. Your welcomed to PM me though.

I'll await your response to my previous question.

See above.

 

[depthdeception]

You are mixing statements here to support your concept of what the "Light" was in Genesis 1:3. We should not expect that the light supported life on other planets because life was only created on Earth according to the Genesis account. "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth". Then the Earth brings forth living things, and all other planets are classified as the "Heavens".

I don't understand why this is a necessary conclusion. If the "light" of Genesis 1:3 is magical enough (which is what you are basically advocating) to function as a star even though it isn't a star, then surely this same power could be applicable to all the other planets--nay, the entire universe...

Now you talk about the Sun and its approximation to the Earth that God created in Genesis 1:14. Lights were created in the sky to give seperate light from day and give seasons. In verse 16 the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule he night is talked about as well. This is obviously different then the light spoken into existence in verse 3.

I agree that they are different. Hence the contradiction of your position with our observation of the universe in which we live.

Now as it relates to what we are talking about, the Earth brought forth plants before the sun was created, so evolutionary theory would say that the "Light" must have been sufficient to support the life on the earth, but it was not sunlight since that was not created yet.

No, evolutionary theory would say that the proper peices were in place before evolution of biological life occurred. This would necessitate the presence of the sun.

 

[EIChief]

No, evolutionary theory would say that the proper peices were in place before evolution of biological life occurred. This would necessitate the presence of the sun.

You should probably explain your belief as to how the evolutionary process started. I was taking for granted I was talking to someone who was a Theist, if you are not then this explains the circles we are running around in as I would approached the discussion differently, and moved to a different forum

 

[depthdeception]

You should probably explain your belief as to how the evolutionary process started. I was taking for granted I was talking to someone who was a Theist, if you are not then this explains the circles we are running around in as I would approached the discussion differently, and moved to a different forum

Be assured. I am a Theist.

 

[EIChief]

Be assured. I am a Theist.

Then your belief on origin would be interesting to hear

 

[depthdeception]

Then your belief on origin would be interesting to hear

I consider myself to be in line with theistic evolution. In other words, I do not see a discrepancy with God creating the universe by using purely naturalistic means and God being creator.